3 ms·

It's the difference between being a publisher/game developer and a hardware company. Hardware companies see games as a means to sell consoles. Game developers

It's the difference between being a publisher/game developer and a hardware company. Hardware companies see games as a means to sell consoles. Game developers see platforms as a means to sell games. If you're coming at things from the perspective of a hardware maker it makes sense to be as restrictive as possible, since that provides the differentiation that sells your (overpriced) hardware. In addition, if your hardware becomes common then you can charge game developers for access (more broadly, this is what Apple does, mostly) From the game developer side, it makes sense to be on as many platforms as physically possible, since that's just more places to make sales and money.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Is Nintendo even making money on the Switches themselves ?
- hellotomyrars 3y ago
  Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries. The other part being that they decided years ago not to try and compete with MS/Sony and instead make great games. Switch is not an entertainment center it's a gaming console. And the strategy is absolutely working and has been since the Wii days.
    - hellotomyrars 3y ago
      To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain. That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        their strategy included the Wii U, to deny that is to deny reality. I also wouldn't call the Wii U a failure. Not being as successful as previous consoles from Nintendo is not the same thing as being a failure. Nintendo profited from every sale.
        hellotomyrars 3y ago
        Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125) The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible. I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        What started all of this is the observation that they've been successful over the last 3 console generations by not trying to compete directly with Sony and MS but instead to try and innovate and make great games people want to play (game console vs entertainment center). This doesn't stop being true because you want to label the Wii U as a failure. Many will tell you the Wii itself was a failure. Many don't consider the Wii U a failure. Who cares, my point stands.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BlueTemplar 3y ago

Is Nintendo even making money on the Switches themselves ?

hellotomyrars 3y ago
Nintendo is famous for not selling their hardware at a loss unlike other console manufacturers. The only systems known to be sold at a loss were the 3DS (after price cuts) and the Wii U. This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > This is part of why the hardware is underpowered compared to contemporaries. The other part being that they decided years ago not to try and compete with MS/Sony and instead make great games. Switch is not an entertainment center it's a gaming console. And the strategy is absolutely working and has been since the Wii days.
  - hellotomyrars 3y ago
    To be clear, I am not saying Nintendo is wrong for making the hardware choices they have. By all accounts they intended to have a meaningful Switch hardware revision when the OLED hit but decided against it because of the then-exploded and uncertain supply chain. That said, I don't think you can draw a nice and neat trendline specifically from the Wii. I think the strategy has worked out well for them since its inception but a trend line from the Wii to the Switch only looks really good if you don't include the Wii U.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      their strategy included the Wii U, to deny that is to deny reality. I also wouldn't call the Wii U a failure. Not being as successful as previous consoles from Nintendo is not the same thing as being a failure. Nintendo profited from every sale.
      - hellotomyrars 3y ago
        Well, no. The Wii U is one of the two notable examples where Nintendo did sell the hardware at a loss. This isn’t speculation. Iwata said this in shareholders calls. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20095125) The Wii was a breakout success in a demographic the market had never previously reached. It is def unrealistic to expect the Wii U to have recaptured that market but it was done about as poorly as possible. I’m not saying the Wii U was a failure in totality but it did not live up to expectations for both Nintendo as a corporation or for many consumers. It’s okay to recognize this, Nintendo themselves did.
        PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        What started all of this is the observation that they've been successful over the last 3 console generations by not trying to compete directly with Sony and MS but instead to try and innovate and make great games people want to play (game console vs entertainment center). This doesn't stop being true because you want to label the Wii U as a failure. Many will tell you the Wii itself was a failure. Many don't consider the Wii U a failure. Who cares, my point stands.